Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on September 19, 2024. Claims 1-12 are currently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on September 19, 2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “a receiving device configured to receive an output instruction value of the drive source by a driver…the output instruction value…being detected by a sensor provided in the saddle-type vehicle during traveling of the saddle-type vehicle”.
However, the phrase “by a driver” is ambiguous and renders the scope of the claim unclear. Although the specification describes a grip sensor operated by a driver, the claim does not clearly define the relationship between the driver and the “output instruction value”. In particular, it is unclear whether the output instruction value is generated by driver operation of the grip, received from the driver, perceived by the driver, or output from the drive source. Further, the claim simultaneously recites that the output instruction value is detected by a sensor, creating uncertainty as to the origin and role of the driver with respect to the output instruction value.
Accordingly claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Independent claim 12 recites “receiving a behavior instruction value by a driver, the behavior instruction value being detected by a sensor during the traveling of the saddle-type vehicle”.
However, it is unclear how a driver receives a behavior instruction value. The term “behavior instruction value” implies a data value or signal detected by a sensor, which would ordinarily be received by a vehicle control system rather than a human driver. The claim does not reasonably clarify whether the value is generated by the driver, perceived by the driver, or received by a vehicle system based on driver input/operation.
Accordingly claim 12 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appropriate correction or clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (WIPO Publication No. WO2023053270A1; machine translation obtained from Espacenet, hereinafter as “Ishikawa”).
As per claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a behavior estimation device (Fig. 2: control device 50) configured to analyze a behavior of a saddle-type vehicle (Fig. 1: saddle-ride type vehicle 10, e.g., a motorcycle) including a vehicle body, a drive source (power unit 12, which is an internal combustion engine), and a grounded traveling body (e.g., a front wheel 13, a rear wheel 15) configured to travel using a driving force generated by the drive source (see e.g., para. [0014]-[0017] & [0020]-[0022]), the behavior estimation device comprising:
a receiving device configured to receive an output instruction value of the drive source by a driver (see e.g., para. [0016]: “the saddle-ride type vehicle 10 is equipped with an accelerator grip that can be rotated relative to the handlebars 21, and an accelerator position sensor 42A (see Figure 2) that detects the rotation angle of the accelerator grip.”) and a rotational speed of the drive source (see e.g., para. [0034]: the posture control unit 72 controls the power unit 12 and the rear wheel braking device 30 so that the rotational speed of the rear wheel 15 decreases/increases), the output instruction value and the rotational speed being detected by a sensor provided in the saddle-type vehicle during traveling of the saddle-type vehicle (e.g., para. [0020] & [0035]); and
a processing device configured to estimate whether the grounded traveling body is in a grounded state in which the grounded traveling body is in contact with a road surface or in a jump state in which the grounded traveling body is separated from the road surface based on the output instruction value and the rotational speed received by the receiving device (see e.g., para. [0032]: “the jump intention determination unit 70 determines that the rider does not intend to jump the vehicle if the time during which the accelerator grip is not rotated exceeds a predetermined threshold time at the time of determination during control by the output control unit 68. In addition, the jump execution intention determination unit 70 may determine whether or not the rider intends to jump the vehicle using any other method, such as detecting whether or not the rider has operated a specified switch, or making a determination based on the rider's driving operation state.”; para. [0035]: “In the posture control unit 72, any method can be used to determine whether the vehicle body is jumping, such as a determination based on the difference in rotational speed between the front wheels 13 and the rear wheels 15”; and para. [0043]: “Then, while the vehicle body is jumping, the attitude control unit 72 controls the rotation speed of the rear wheels 15 to control the attitude of the vehicle body so that the vehicle body lands according to the target value of the landing attitude (step S6).”).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Ishikawa discloses: wherein
the grounded state includes:
a pre-jump grounded state indicating a state in which the grounded traveling body is in contact with the ground and is in the middle of transitioning to the jump state;
a landing state indicating a state in which the grounded traveling body is in contact with the ground and lands from the jump state; and
a normal grounded state indicating a state in which the grounded traveling body is in contact with the ground and that is other than the pre-jump grounded state and the landing state (see e.g., Figs. 3 & 5; para. [0018], [0029]-[0030] & [0040]), and
the processing device estimates which of the pre-jump grounded state, the landing state, the normal grounded state, and the jump state corresponds to (see e.g., para. [0032]-[0035] & [0043]).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Ishikawa discloses: wherein the processing device further estimates whether the saddle-type vehicle is in the grounded state or the jump state based on a vehicle speed and a front-rear acceleration, which are detected by the sensor provided in the saddle-type vehicle during the traveling of the saddle-type vehicle (see e.g., para. [0020], [0022], [0035] & [0043]: “The vehicle speed detection unit 40 includes a vehicle speed sensor 40A that detects the vehicle speed of the vehicle body, and outputs vehicle speed detection information D1 to the control device 50. The accelerator operation detection unit 42 includes the accelerator position sensor 42A, detects the rider's accelerator operation, and outputs accelerator operation detection information D2 to the control device 50.”).
As per claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated and Ishikawa discloses: wherein
the saddle-type vehicle is a motorcycle traveling on an unpaved road (see e.g., para. [0017]: “The saddle-type vehicle 10 of this embodiment is a motorcycle, and is configured as an offroad vehicle with high performance on rough terrain (off-road).”).
As per claim 12, Ishikawa discloses a behavior estimation method for analyzing a behavior of a saddle-type vehicle (Fig. 1: saddle-ride type vehicle 10, e.g., a motorcycle) including a vehicle body, a drive source (power unit 12, which is an internal combustion engine), and a grounded traveling body (e.g., a front wheel 13, a rear wheel 15) that is in contact with a road surface and travels by a driving force generated by the drive source (see e.g., para. [0014]-[0017] & [0020]-[0022]), the behavior estimation method comprising:
receiving a behavior instruction value by a driver (see e.g., para. [0016]: “the saddle-ride type vehicle 10 is equipped with an accelerator grip that can be rotated relative to the handlebars 21, and an accelerator position sensor 42A (see Figure 2) that detects the rotation angle of the accelerator grip.”), the behavior instruction value being detected by a sensor during the traveling of the saddle-type vehicle (e.g., para. [0020] & [0035]); and
estimating whether the grounded traveling body is in a grounded state in which the grounded traveling body is in contact with the road surface or in a jump state in which the grounded traveling body is separated from the road surface based on the received behavior instruction value (see e.g., para. [0032]: “the jump intention determination unit 70 determines that the rider does not intend to jump the vehicle if the time during which the accelerator grip is not rotated exceeds a predetermined threshold time at the time of determination during control by the output control unit 68. In addition, the jump execution intention determination unit 70 may determine whether or not the rider intends to jump the vehicle using any other method, such as detecting whether or not the rider has operated a specified switch, or making a determination based on the rider's driving operation state.”; para. [0035]: “In the posture control unit 72, any method can be used to determine whether the vehicle body is jumping, such as a determination based on the difference in rotational speed between the front wheels 13 and the rear wheels 15, a determination based on the detection value D5 of the IMU 48, or a determination based on the stroke amount of the front suspension and rear suspension.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Mori et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0041522; hereinafter as “Mori”).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose: wherein the processing device receives time-series data of the output instruction value and the rotational speed from the receiving device, and outputs time-series data of an estimation result indicating whether the saddle-type vehicle is in the grounded state or the jump state.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mori teaches: wherein the processing device receives time-series data of the output instruction value and the rotational speed from the receiving device, and outputs time-series data of an estimation result indicating whether the saddle-type vehicle is in the grounded state or the jump state (see e.g., para. [0021]-[0024]: “The vehicle may include a temporal storage device for storing as time-series data, at least first information relating to a driver's operation of the vehicle and included in the data output from the devices such that the first information is updated; and the controller may read out from the temporal storage device, the data output from the devices during a period of time between a time point when storing of the data in the nonvolatile memory is initiated and a time point that is a predetermined time back from the time point when storing of the data in the nonvolatile memory was initiated.”; para. [0101]-[0102] & [0114]: “The EDR 120 is also configured in such a manner that a data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes the data of the output signals from the vehicle speed sensors 24, 25 to be stored as time-series data in the RAM 34 and update the data once in every predetermined period while the power supply of the motorcycle 1 is ON. The data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes particular data indicating at least a moving state in a normal use state of the motorcycle 1 to be stored as history data in the nonvolatile memory 35. Furthermore, the data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes particular data relating to a fall of the motorcycle 1 to be stored as event data in the nonvolatile memory 35, if it is determined that the motorcycle 1 has fallen.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Mori to provide receiving time-series data detected by the sensors, and outputting time-series data of an estimation result indicating the state of the vehicle. Doing so allows to analyze the state of the vehicle/motorcycle with high accuracy, as recognized by Mori (para. [0023]-[0024]).
As per claim 5, claim 4 is incorporated and Ishikawa discloses: wherein the processing device calculates a vehicle speed and a front-rear acceleration of the saddle-type vehicle
Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose the processing device calculating vehicle data based on time-series data of position information of the saddle-type.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mori teaches: the processing device calculates vehicle data based on time-series data of position information of the saddle-type (see e.g., para. [0021]-[0024]: “The vehicle may include a temporal storage device for storing as time-series data, at least first information relating to a driver's operation of the vehicle and included in the data output from the devices such that the first information is updated; and the controller may read out from the temporal storage device, the data output from the devices during a period of time between a time point when storing of the data in the nonvolatile memory is initiated and a time point that is a predetermined time back from the time point when storing of the data in the nonvolatile memory was initiated.”; para. [0046]-[0047]: “The GPS sensor is connected to a GPS (global positioning system) and configured to obtain positional information of the motorcycle 1”; and para. [0101]-[0102]: “The EDR 120 is also configured in such a manner that a data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes the data of the output signals from the vehicle speed sensors 24, 25 to be stored as time-series data in the RAM 34 and update the data once in every predetermined period while the power supply of the motorcycle 1 is ON. The data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes particular data indicating at least a moving state in a normal use state of the motorcycle 1 to be stored as history data in the nonvolatile memory 35. Furthermore, the data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes particular data relating to a fall of the motorcycle 1 to be stored as event data in the nonvolatile memory 35, if it is determined that the motorcycle 1 has fallen.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Mori to utilize time-series data. Doing so allows to analyze the state of the vehicle/motorcycle with high accuracy, as recognized by Mori (para. [0023]-[0024]).
As per claim 6, claim 5 is incorporated and Ishikawa in view of Mori discloses: wherein the receiving device receives the time-series data of the position information of the saddle-type vehicle from a GNSS sensor serving as the sensor (see Mori, e.g., para. [0046]-[0047]: a GPS sensor; GPS is a well-known subset of GNSS and thus would have been obvious).
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Matsuda (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0019960).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose: wherein the processing device causes a display device to display information in which an estimation result as to whether the saddle-type vehicle is in the grounded state or the jump state is superimposed on a map based on the position information of the saddle-type vehicle and the estimation result.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuda teaches: wherein the processing device causes a display device to display information in which an estimation result as to whether the saddle-type vehicle is in the grounded state or the jump state is superimposed on a map based on the position information of the saddle-type vehicle and the estimation result (see e.g., Figs. 6A-6C; para. [0131], [0138], [0140]: multidimensional map; and para. [0196]: the status of use of the vehicle 1 is displayed to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Matsuda to provide superimposing the estimation results on a map. Doing so allows the user to visually grasp the tendency of the status of use of the vehicle.
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Ishikawa discloses: wherein
the processing device applies an estimation model in which the output instruction value and the rotational speed are input and an estimation result indicating whether the saddle-type vehicle is in the grounded state or the jump state is output (see e.g., para. [0032], [0035] & [0043]).
Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose the estimation model is created by learning a feature based on the output instruction value, a feature based on the rotational speed, and correct data indicating whether the saddle-type vehicle is in the grounded state or the jump state in a case of a combination of the features as training data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuda teaches: the estimation model is created by learning a feature based on the output instruction value, a feature based on the rotational speed, and correct data indicating whether the saddle-type vehicle is in the grounded state or the jump state in a case of a combination of the features as training data (see e.g., Figs. 9A-9C; para. [0109]-[0120] & [0176]-[0180]: “The learned first status specification model is created through machine learning. In the machine learning, running operation category data and detection values (e.g., detection data of various sensors obtained when the vehicle 200 shown in FIG. 4 has been caused to run) detected by a plurality of sensors when the vehicle 1 has performed running corresponding to the running operation category data, are used as learning data. The running state specification section 52 inputs a plurality of detection values as the input data, to the input layer of the first status specification model, thereby causing one or more running operation categories corresponding to the input data of the first status specification model, to be outputted”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Matsuda to provide creating the estimation model by learning a feature based on detection data of various sensors. Doing so allows to create a learned model by performing machine learning on detected sensor values for training.
As per claim 10, claim 8 is incorporated and Ishikawa in view of Matsuda discloses: wherein the training data includes data detected when the saddle-type vehicle travels along a plurality of traveling paths (see Matsuda, e.g., para. [0114]-[0126] & [0176]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Matsuda, and further in view of Mori.
As per claim 9, claim 8 is incorporated and Ishikawa in view of Matsuda does not explicitly disclose: wherein the processing device receives time-series data of the output instruction value and the rotational speed from the receiving device, and the processing device performs processing of matching sampling rates of the output instruction value and the rotational speed by down-sampling the time-series data of at least one of the output instruction value and the rotational speed, and then inputs processing result to the estimation model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mori teaches: wherein the processing device receives time-series data of the output instruction value and the rotational speed from the receiving device (see e.g., para. [0021]-[0024], [0101]-[0102] & [0114]: “The EDR 120 is also configured in such a manner that a data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes the data of the output signals from the vehicle speed sensors 24, 25 to be stored as time-series data in the RAM 34 and update the data once in every predetermined period while the power supply of the motorcycle 1 is ON. The data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes particular data indicating at least a moving state in a normal use state of the motorcycle 1 to be stored as history data in the nonvolatile memory 35. Furthermore, the data output control section 132 in the ECU 118 causes particular data relating to a fall of the motorcycle 1 to be stored as event data in the nonvolatile memory 35, if it is determined that the motorcycle 1 has fallen.”), and
the processing device performs processing of matching sampling rates of the output instruction value and the rotational speed by down-sampling the time-series data of at least one of the output instruction value and the rotational speed, and then inputs processing result to the estimation model (see e.g., para. [0076]: “Although the processed values (accumulated value, extreme value and average value) of raw data are used as the history data in the present embodiment, to compress a data volume, the data volume may be compressed by another method. For example, the history data may be sampled at intervals greater than those at which the event data is sampled.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishikawa in view of Matsuda to incorporate the teachings of Mori to provide receiving time-series data detected by the sensors, and down-sampling it. Doing so allows to analyze the state of the vehicle/motorcycle with high accuracy and further to compress the data volume, as recognized by Mori (para. [0023]-[0024] & [0076]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Hattori (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0269016) teaches a controller and a control method capable of appropriately stabilizing a posture of a straddle-type vehicle.
Shimazu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0012964) teaches a control data creation device and method for creating data concerning control of the components of a human-powered vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov